Voting For Pro-Abortion Politicians Is A Sin

[Rence]

But you just said it was ok to fail to oppose abortion by declining to put up a pro-life yard sign. I dispute your denigration of the effectiveness of public declarations like billboards and yard signs. They have potentially more effect on the number of pro-life votes than casting your one single vote in secret. If you think that a yard sign is “likely unsuccessful” and therefore unnecessary then would you also say that if the polls show the pro-life candidate is likely to lose then it is ok not to vote for him? After all, voting for someone who the polls say is not likely to win is like putting up a yard sign that you think is likely unsuccessful. If you are allowed to make the prudential judgement that a yard sign is not effective at opposing abortion then I am allowed to make the value judgement that voting for a particular candidate is not effective at opposing abortion.

Exactly. You’re simply not opposing abortion in a particular (and likely unsuccessful) way. Though you, like everyone else, has their own way. There’s not just one way.

 

[PJM]

=ACCT;9348425]I am pretty sure that Martin Luther did not want to form his own Church. He never wanted a “Lutheran” church. He believed himself to be a Catholic during his dissension even though the Catholic Church had already named him an outsider.

The Church teaches that those that have actively participated in the abortion process are excommunicated automatically. This is not a punishment it is a statement of fact that THEY have separated themselves from the Church. I do not believe that this would apply to all taxpayers since we do not get to determine how tax dollars are spent, yet I am making an assumption on how God will Judge me for the spending of tax dollars that I have little control over. That being said** if I vote for someone that I know will spend MY tax dollars supporting abortion then I am taking an ACTIVE part in the abortion process.** I have actively helped others procure abortion. **You can argue any way you want to but in the end you need to address this in prayer because the justification of your actions and separation from the church is with God. **

The above being said I am sure you can find a priest somewhere that would counter church teaching. It has been happening for hundreds of years, but it still does not make the protesting priest any more correct than Luther.

the Catholic Catechism: 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

***No ONE can assume the “right” to vote for or give ANY aid or support to any politican who proclaims PUBLICALLY they they support abortion ; Gay “rights” or civil union of same-sex “couples”…NO EXCEPTIONS!

Doing so is a Mortal sin! As theses acts are “Intrinsic Evils” = Evil every time and all should KNOW it!***

THIS APPLIES TO ALL: CATHOLICS PROTESTANTS AND EVERYONE ELSE!

God Bless,
pat/ PJM

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ok, then assume a not-so-tacky professionally printed pro-life yard sign. Am I still allowed to decline to put it up?

I don’t need to prove the yard sign is effective any more than you need to prove voting for a pro-life candidate is effective. But consider this: a pro-life yard sign might do more than influence a vote. It might actually influence a pregnant girl who is undecided about having an abortion to decide to have the baby.

We are not necessarily talking about the same person. The person who does or does not vote pro-life is not the person who does or does not put up a yard sign. For purposes of argument you may assume that the person with the yard sign quandary always votes pro-life.

Are you saying that opposing abortion in one of those other ways might excuse him from opposing abortion in voting? Why is it that voting is mandatory while all other ways of opposing abortion are optional?

It sounds like you are opening the door to prudential judgement in deciding when and to what degree to oppose abortion.

Since the Pope does not allow for “prudential judgment” in supporting abortion politically, I do not feel free to do so.

In no way am i saying that opposing abortion in other ways excuses one from opposing abortion in the only direct political means he has to end a political support of abortion.

In a sense, no ways of opposing abortion are “optional”. We should all be in jail due to the strength and resoluteness of our opposition. But we can’t all be in jail for a number of reasons, and we can’t oppose abortion in every single way there is to do it, or we would do nothing else.

There is no particular reason to expect that a yard sign will have any effect on abortion, when much better signs have not had a demonstrable effect. And what is the message? Is it “oppose Obama if you oppose abortion”? Or is it just “abortion is wrong?”. The majority already opposes abortion on demand. It is the failure of the majority to oppose the political leaders who promote it that the majority does not yet do.

One vote is not all that significant among millions. But it is what we can do, and it is direct in attempting to remove the real cause of abortion-promotion in this country; the politicians who support and promote it. Voting for one of them directly supports and promotes abortion. Voting against one of them is directly opposing the root cause of governmental promotion of abortion.

Are you saying your support of Obama or like-minded politicians has no moral consequence? Is that what you’re saying?

While we’re discussing analogies, how about this one? You are standing in a remote place. You see a man choking a child in a serious way. You perceive that you have a good chance at physically preventing the man from killing the child. You tell him to stop. He tells you he is going to kill the child and doesn’t care what you think about it, and continues choking the child. Do you believe you are at moral fault if you just walk away and do nothing, believing reasonably that the man will surely kill the child?

 

[Rence]

the Catholic Catechism: 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice is not ‘formal cooperation in an abortion’ unless the only reason for voting for the candidate is to suppor abortion.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other. On the contrary, to materially cooperate in another’s crime is to participate in the action so far as its physical entity is concerned, but not in so far as it is motived by the malice of the principal in the case. For example, to persuade another to absent himself without reason from Mass on Sunday would be an instance of formal cooperation. To sell a person in an ordinary business transaction a revolver which he presently uses to kill himself is a case of material cooperation. Then it must be borne in mind that the cooperation may be described as proximate or remote in proportion to the closeness of relation between the action of the principal and that of his helper. The teaching with regard to this subject-matter is very plain, and may be stated in this wise: Formal cooperation is never lawful, since it presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice. Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent, and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action…
In general, however, the following considerations will be of value in discerning whether in an instance of material cooperation the reason avowed is valid or not. The necessity for a more and more powerful reason is accentuated in proportion as there is
•a greater likelihood that the sin would not be committed without the act of material cooperation;
•a closer relationship between the two; and
•a greater heinousness in the sin, especially in regard to harm done either to the common weal or some unoffending third party.

Procuring, providing, assisting to provide, helping someone to procure, paying for, helping pay for, counseling someone to procure an abortion would all be formal cooperation.

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice is remote cooperation at best. One’s vote isn’t going to change abortion in the U.S. Changing people’s minds will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice is not ‘formal cooperation in an abortion’ unless the only reason for voting for the candidate is to suppor abortion.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Procuring, providing, assisting to provide, helping someone to procure, paying for, helping pay for, counseling someone to procure an abortion would all be formal cooperation.

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice is remote cooperation at best. One’s vote isn’t going to change abortion in the U.S. Changing people’s minds will.

(CNSNews.com) – Catholics cannot vote for political candidates who support a right to abortion, said Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican and the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri.

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the right to choice of a woman to destroy the human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion,” said Burke in a recent interview with the group Catholic Action for Faith and Family.

He further explained, “You may in some circumstances – when you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion – choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country.”

“But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” said the cardinal.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice, gravely contrary to the moral law.” (2322)

Cardinal-designate Burke also spoke about how Catholics in public life who support abortion are creating scandal.

“What is scandal?” he said. “Scandal is either doing something or omitting to do something that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good. And here’s the perfect example of Catholics who betray their Catholic faith in political life, as legislators or judges, or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is in fact a good thing in some circumstances.”

“It can never be right, no matter what good I am trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the great evil of abortion,” said the cardinal. “I can’t ever justify that, voting for that candidate.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

From “Forming our Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice is remote cooperation at best. One’s vote isn’t going to change abortion in the U.S. Changing people’s minds will.

And when the majority of the country opposes abortion on demand, but the president promotes in every way possible just the same, it’s clear that “changing peoples’ minds” isn’t the answer. Removing the politicians that promote it is the answer.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is no longer just an issue of abortion. It’s come down to a Democrat president who absolutely never thinks abortion is a wrong choice (not even after the baby is born) and who is now confusing people about what true marriage is. His party is calling anyone who is for traditional marriage a bigot, and some Democrats are already calling us terrorists while the left-wing/DNC controlled mainstream media produces endless gay anti-Catholic propaganda. Mitt Romney isn’t perfect (no candidate is). But at least for the most part the RNC supports traditional moral values, and are not at war with the Catholic Church. And by the way, it’s a myth that Romney supported so-called “gay marriage”. He fought against it, but he was overruled. The truth is that Romney strongly opposed same-sex marriage during his governorship.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In no way am i saying that opposing abortion in other ways excuses one from opposing abortion in the only direct political means he has to end a political support of abortion.

Of course you don’t. But you did use that same argument to explain why it was ok to decline to put up a yard sign in favor of doing something else pro-life. So I ask again, what is so unique about the political actions? Is it that they are orders of magnitude more effective in preventing abortion than anything else you could do? Because on that question I think people can legitimately disagree. Or is there some other reason that only voting is mandatory?

In a sense, no ways of opposing abortion are “optional”. We should all be in jail due to the strength and resoluteness of our opposition. But we can’t all be in jail for a number of reasons, and we can’t oppose abortion in every single way there is to do it, or we would do nothing else.

That makes sense. It’s like when we are supposed to perform acts of charity. But we don’t have to give away everything we own.

There is no particular reason to expect that a yard sign will have any effect on abortion, when much better signs have not had a demonstrable effect.

That is your opinion - one that I happen to disagree with.

And what is the message?

I have seen plenty of very moving and challenging pro-life messages - and the best of them are not even political.

The majority already opposes abortion on demand.

Therefore nothing more needs to be done I that area? So if 51% oppose abortion we should bother trying to raise that number to 70%? You obviously prefer the political approach to solving this problem but why would you then belittle any other approach?

One vote is not all that significant among millions. But it is what we can do, and it is direct in attempting to remove the real cause of abortion-promotion in this country; the politicians who support and promote it

No, voting is not the only thing we can do. And no, the root cause of abortions is people wanting abortions. Even if you make abortion illegal at best you will be returning to the 1950’s and 1960’s. And while there were fewer abortions then, there were still quite a lot. Changing hearts has the potential to stop even those abortions.

Are you saying your support of Obama or like-minded politicians has no moral consequence? Is that what you’re saying?

That is an extreme exaggeration of what I am saying. Of course voting has moral consequences. But so does putting up a yard sign. For example, suppose I put up a yard sign supporting a women’s right to choose abortion? I’m sure you would say that has moral consequences. So why are you discounting the moral consequences of putting up a yard sign that says the opposite?

While we’re discussing analogies, how about this one? You are standing in a remote place. You see a man choking a child in a serious way. You perceive that you have a good chance at physically preventing the man from killing the child. You tell him to stop. He tells you he is going to kill the child and doesn’t care what you think about it, and continues choking the child. Do you believe you are at moral fault if you just walk away and do nothing, believing reasonably that the man will surely kill the child?

Yes, I would be at serious moral fault by walking away. But that scenario is much more direct and certain as to the outcome than voting for a politician. So let’s change your scenario a little to make it more like the voting scenario. Suppose that rather than standing in a remote place I am in the middle of a large city. And instead of witnessing a man choking a child hear a rumor that some guy named Fred is going to choke his son as punishment for wrecking the car. Would I be morally at fault if I failed to pass on to the police this vague rumor? That is a little closer to the situation of my voting for a politician.

 

[Rence]

(CNSNews.com) – Catholics cannot vote for political candidates who support a right to abortion, said Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican and the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri.

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the right to choice of a woman to destroy the human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion,” said Burke in a recent interview with the group Catholic Action for Faith and Family.

He further explained, “You may in some circumstances – when you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion – choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country.”

“But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” said the cardinal.

This is not an infallible statement from the Vatican, or a command from our Pontiff. It is an important and relevent opinion from a high ranking Cardinal, however, not infallible.

 

[Rence]

And when the majority of the country opposes abortion on demand, but the president promotes in every way possible just the same, it’s clear that “changing peoples’ minds” isn’t the answer. Removing the politicians that promote it is the answer.

I believe the only way to stop abortions is to change the mind of the women who want them, so yes, changing people’s minds (namely pregnant women who are considering abortion) will either have an abortion procured or rejected. Any service or product is available by demand. And I disagree that politicians are ‘promoting’ it. I don’t see anyone promoting it. I do see, however misguided it is, to make them available to those who want them, but that is very much different than promoting it.

For example, I’ve always had contraceptives covered on all of my insurance policies…I’ve never used this benefit. I don’t consider it a promotion or an encouragement to use them just because the benefit is available. I’m of the mindset of not using them. Therefore I don’t. It’s the same with abortion. Abortions are only had by those who don’t have the resolve of not having one. You have to help them discern not to have one.

 

[Matttis]

every woman should have the right to decide what happens with her body. so abortion should be legal in certain cases!
if a woman fails to use birth control multiple times its going too far of course but a rape victim or a young girl should be allowed to abort.

 

[livingwordunity]

every woman should have the right to decide what happens with her body. so abortion should be legal in certain cases!
if a woman fails to use birth control multiple times its going too far of course but a rape victim or a young girl should be allowed to abort.

Why do you believe that the baby should get the death penalty for a crime she didn’t commit?

 

[Matttis]

Why do you believe that the baby should get the death penalty for a crime she didn’t commit?

im sorry, its late here and i forgot to add something.
after a certain stage of developement abortion shouldnt be allowed as well.
within the first weeks its basically just a random lump of unorganized cells and not an actual human, i dont see a problem with aborting that.

 

[livingwordunity]

im sorry, its late here and i forgot to add something.
after a certain stage of developement abortion shouldnt be allowed as well.
within the first weeks its basically just a random lump of unorganized cells and not an actual human, i dont see a problem with aborting that.

You didn’t know that life begins at conception?

 

[Matttis]

You didn’t know that life begins at conception?

so what? its still just a random assortment of unorganized cells. it isnt capable of sustaining its own life in any way shape or form and it doesnt even remotely look like a human.
and why is life so special anyway? and what about the mother?

 

[Jeanne_S]

voting for one of the non negotiable is a sin, you can’t find a perfect candidate but that isn’t an excuse to vote for someone who is pro choice

if no pro life candidate is on the ballot then you vote for the person who will do the least damage. In that case it wouldn’t be a sin

This is my understanding as well:thumbsup:

 

[livingwordunity]

so what? its still just a random assortment of unorganized cells.

Would it be okay if someone described you that way?

 

[Matttis]

Would it be okay if someone described you that way?

no, since it would be completely inaccurate. i am a fully developed human. an embryo isnt.

for me actual human life starts at the fetus stage. at that point you are fully developed, you just grow for the last couple of months.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is not an infallible statement from the Vatican, or a command from our Pontiff. It is an important and relevent opinion from a high ranking Cardinal, however, not infallible.

It’s the position of my bishop also, and a lot of others. I think we have a duty to pay attention to such things, particularly when the Popes have said that supporting an abortion politician is permissible only when the purpose of the vote is to prevent the election of someone who is even more abortion supporting.